More and more hardcore...

[eternalblue]

I think I was playing the civilization IV and V for about 2 years and I was debating the subject a comparation on those 2 games. I was playing them too much and enjoying them thinking that for example civ4 is more historicaly acurate with more empire building than civ5. And civ5 is a game to have more fun in combat and all new features. I was just thinking that civilization series are complex games with a lot of history in it and all was cool for a while.

But one day I just talking with a friend of mine about the civ series that are great game and very in depth. And hes answer was: "OK if civ are in depth then grand strategy games are much above." And then I was asking him what are "grand strategy". So my friend was introducing me to the 4 head games of paradox games: crusader kings 2, europa universalis 4, victoria 2, hearts of iron 3. I was playing them just about for 1 hour every of them and I was just fascinated how good they are:
Very historically accurate, in depth with random events, free will to do what you want, cool features in diplomacy, war, economics, culture and politics, plots and intrigue,trading,conquer,colonise. You can pick what leader/country on the world map in the game you want ,and you are free to do what you want just with your own plan and goal. The only problem those 4 games have is that they are very difficult to control , and is very hard for begginers to undersrand them and can loose a lot in the path to learn the mechanics. But when you trully understand them you will see how rewarding they are that is nothing to compare with them. The games have a huge content , a lot of players put like 700-1000 hours in every game and they say that they didn't know all about the core of gameplay mechanics with that huge database and events.

So, for those that want a lot of history to learn and something more hardcore than civ4 or civ5 sometimes, try those four paradox great titles, they are incredible...

 

[BrokTheFanatic]

Well, if you really want a truly hardcore game try "Physics". Absolutely brutal, you can spend a life-time and not understand even half of it.

My point being, "complexity" =/= "hardcore game". The games you name are all good but be careful throwing around terms like "grand strategy". Games like you list above all have weaknesses that can be exploited for what I consider to be "easy strategies" (same goes for civ, it is just an inherent weakness of any simulator + strategy game with a reasonable amount of complexity, which is why the AIs get bonuses as you move up the difficulty bar).

Civ is an empire building game and only is "hardcore" if you multiplay verse human opponents. It has historical elements which adds to the fun/enjoyment.

As for hardcore god mode games, I think Populus (the original) was the first and last truly hardcore god mode game because you needed a plan and top notch twitch skills to beat the AI when you pumped it up and got on a 20x faster PC than it was designed on, haha. Anyone remember that game? Loved it, was a dopamine rush. I can recall panning and watching the AI remove mountains you plopped in their lands in seconds, just crazy intense beating it.

 

[eternalblue]

Yes I was playing populous a long time ago. It was a nice game but I didn't see things hardcore in it. Hardcore for me is not the complexity or the amount of stuff that you can need to do in a time or the opponent that it inovates or moves fast etc... For me a hardcore game is a game that is strong in his center in his core, mechanics. The ''history elements'' that are in civ are just like a ''bunch of tools'' just the names and some descriptions with bonuses. but you cant live or play through history with them. Don't get me wrong I love civ games I am playing them from time to time, but they lack so much in comparation with paradox games. The biggest difference is that in civilization if you play 30 hours you can know the game entirely how is working and all that stuff... In paradox games you can spend 1000 hours and is like you can't know anything that you can do in it because of the amount of stuff you can do, the different random events and the huge data base. The real empire building is in Europa Universalis IV, Crusader Kings II , Victoria II, if you play them civ is ''a light empire building'' in comparation. The diplomacy is so strong in paradox games, the leaders enact like a real person or the nations, the culture strong and you can see the difference in europe or india, africa, asia, or in the politics, the religion is very involving with the holy wars in politics or diplomacy, and the pope and all the sacrifice for fame and money, the colonization, the states, the people making revolution or factions, and for war you need ''casus belli'' like in real world, the ploting and intrigue, the manipulation of the other states and leaders just to have more relations than others, all the nice RPG random events that makes you to think like a real leader or nation. and the list continues... Is a real world simulation in history... and yes for this strong base they are called '' GRAND STRATEGY GAMES'' because they are grand strategy games... the main focus is '' pick what you want, and do what yo want to do, is your journey, live through history and do the things in your way...''

 

[Sherlock]

My experience is these 'grand strategy games' have fonts and icons SO FREAKING SMALL I CAN'T READ THEM.

Sometimes I miss 320x200.

 

[eternalblue]

I am playing them on my laptop on 1366x768 and for me its fine. But if you want bigger letters you can change the resolution.

 

[LordWut]

Yeah, I've played so much EUIII that half my history knowledge comes from its events - I must've poured in at least two hundred hours in :3

Which do you play?

 

[eternalblue]

Yeah, I've played so much EUIII that half my history knowledge comes from its events - I must've poured in at least two hundred hours in :3

Which do you play?

Now I was starting with crusader kings 2 (867 AD - 1453 AD)... when I will complete , I will import the save game from crusader kings 2 on europa universalis IV (1444 AD-1821 AD) and I will play with the same map that I had in crusader kings 2. or I will start a new one and then the hardest victoria 2 (1836 AD-1936 AD) that is focused more on economics and politics and hearts of iron 3 (1936 AD-1948 AD) and play some world war ...
And now I have all the expansions and add-ons for all four games

 

[LordWut]

Oh, you're playing a megacampaign?! awesome!

I played half of one as England, up to Viccy2 :3 Good times, good times - I ended it controlling most of Europe and nearly all of Western + Southern Asia... France only existed in Australia (don't ask me how) and Spain was clinging on to a part of South America.

Simply epic, I swear! Who are you playing as?

 

[eternalblue]

Oh, you're playing a megacampaign?! awesome!

I played half of one as England, up to Viccy2 :3 Good times, good times - I ended it controlling most of Europe and nearly all of Western + Southern Asia... France only existed in Australia (don't ask me how) and Spain was clinging on to a part of South America.

Simply epic, I swear! Who are you playing as?

Very nice. For the moment I am starting in crusader kings 2 in the role of the king of West Francia. Is very good. I'm planing and do some plots

 

[Furtherado]

A good (hardcore) strategy game, if the history element isn`t that important to you, would be Dominions 4. Look it up, it has over 800 different spells you can research, three eras you can play in with 20 factions for each era that all need to be played differently, and a massive amount of units (probably over 1000 different types) with massive amounts of stats and special abilities.

You don`t really get much help with anything, you don`t get a prompt if you haven`t moved a character for example, you don`t have any advisors. You need to plan very far ahead even before you start a new game, because you need to think about which possibilites are available for your faction, and which spells and magical items fit best with their unit roster. The flavours of each nation are based on cultures from around the world and their mythological creatures.

 

[eternalblue]

Thanx so much. I will try it. I love history and historical games but of course it doesn't matter if is other genre. I love the games that you describe like: a lot of stuff, a lot of events, challenging ,you need to discover for yourself the mechanics. and flexible, free to do what you want.

 

[Sherlock]

I am playing them on my laptop on 1366x768 and for me its fine. But if you want bigger letters you can change the resolution.

Well, if its ok for you then I guess that settles it.

 

[reddishrecue]

The domination victory in bnw is a challenge if that's what you consider hard core sometimes. Domination could cause you to fail on even the emperor difficulty. As for going science or the other less challenging victories
... Immortal difficulty also makes these less challenging. ..

 

[Babri]

Civ is a different game compared to Paradox titles. For example in civ Aztecs may give Spanish a run for their money but in Europa Universalis IV due to historical accuracy Spanish with 8k troops & a good general/conquistador can kick butts of a huge 50k Aztec army with ease.

 

[gps]

And then I was asking him what are "grand strategy".

Well, if you have a look at what Wikipedia has to say about "Grand Strategy" I don't really get why people think the Civ series does not really fit that description. Actually I would be so bold to claim Civ I and Colonization were some of the first real (and also genre defining!) "Grand Strategy" games ever - considering the "historic" background and the hardware technology available then. The only thing that really differentiates Paradox games from Civ is the given historical setting and focus on a specific era. The base mechanics of Paradox games also are quite simple at times (shockingly so actually consiering the hardcore hype!!!), so I don't think the snobbishness of real "Grand Strategy" players towards Civ is really justified. On the other hand with Civ games it is quite easy to create plausible scenarios in the whole span of human civilization. No big deal to create scenarios form ancient, medieval, renaisance or modern area. It's also possible to create SciFi or Phantasy scenarios. So the mechnics are there and the whole package is much more flexible, versatile, accesible and entertaining than a Paradox title. And I don't see that much difference between playing Civ IVs RFC mod or Europa Universalis - actually RFC is my "EU light" I played much more often than EU3.

P.S. Or one can also see it that way: the Civ series started as "Grand Strategy" but then became a trademark of it's own, while other companies pushed the limits of what today is considered widely as "Grand Strategy" - so much that Civ today (almost or actually, depending on what one consideres true "GS") falls out of that window.

 

[NKVD]

I was intrigued by EU4 because of this thread and went on YouTube to see. We have an expression in french that could translate to : Too much is like not enough.

I looked someone play for an hour and I never seen him use any of the 30 diplomacy tools except on the first turn. Battles have no strategy what so ever. There are so popups it looks like a bad porn site. Every time they were poping the guy playing was exhaling and didnt even read them. In the first turn he settled his merchant and said you dont really have to touch that anymore.It looks complex but not that fun without the replayability of a new map each game.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

 

[Magean]

I play Paradox games and Civ quite a lot, and enjoy both.
But I enjoy them differently.

What I like in Paradox games, it's the immersion : feeling like I'm participating in an alternative history, both as observer and as active player... That's why I'm not interested at all in playing EU4, or CK2, or Vicky 2, in a fantasy world that means nothing to me. Of course, there are fantasy worlds I like because, you know, it's the Middle Earth, or Westeros, or the Forgotten Realms... but a totally random map wouldn't be interesting at all, for me.

At the same time, I enjoy civ V as a magnified chess game, or board game. I don't care that much about historical plausibility or immersion ; I want gameplay and replayability. I want to devise and experiment new strategies, not going for a "what if Zoroastrian Persia had survived, England had won the Hundred Years War"... and so on.

So these franchises offer me two quite distinct playstyles. I don't think they compete against each other.

 

[Civking5]

I play and enjoy civ games and also paradox games, Although I started paradox games with their latest games; EU4 and CS2. I think each of these games trigger and stimulate fun differently.

For immersion part, EU4 does a superb job. I find myself greatly immersed in EU4 when suddenly war breaks and battle happens across land and see in several points. Plus I find Eu4 music really good and engaging.

 

[Furtherado]

I didn`t really like EU4, i felt that, yes it is complicated, but because it wants to be so historically accurate i don`t actually feel like I`m in control. I played as Poland, followed the inital quests and suddenly had doubled my empire without much effort, i got in a massive alliance vs the Ottomans, but because they`re supposed to be such a massive military powerhouse, the entirety of Europes combined armies couldnt beat his massive production.

But why would i need to expand my empire? I was already a powerhouse in Europe and there`s no winning conditions, so apart from going after the Ottomans and getting some influence in Asia there wasn`t much i wanted to do. Since the Ottomans were bascily invulnerable ( I saw multiple huge armies from each nation attacking him) i just said i was done and tried a game as Norway, basicly getting as far as i wanted with that nation as well (getting Denmark, some of Sweden, and building a massive trade fleet).

 

[NKVD]

So there is like no goal to attain? Just a sandbox game like Sim City?

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk